...but really it's just to stroke his ego. That's not what military parades are for...

Nationalists and uniform fetishists have been creaming their pants at these public exhibitions a lot longer than Trump has been around.

Anyway, the Republican Party is the party of Trump has been for a while. As has been stated, the main criticism some party isn't what he does or says or thinks, but how tacky and blunt he is. It's mostly a class thing, as Trump has the manners of a working class slob despite being ideologically and economically aligned with the upper class.

There aren't any Reaganites left in the Republican party because the Democratic Party has filled the Reagan political niche (though Reagan himself would be a bit too far left of the main body of party operatives these days on economic and geopolitical policies to actually have much influence). The Democrats also stole Reagan's "image" of the traditional squeaky clean dorky family man (who's only slightly secretly a serial killer) so the republicans had to pick a new persona as well and they ended up going with constantly offended midlife crisis dad who yells at the TV and orders their steak rare (even though they don't like it that way) in the hopes it will annoy their daughter's vegetarian boyfriend.

The criticism of Trump from members of the Republican party and its intelligentsia is based on this cultural divide that has grown in the party since Clinton passed all the policies Reagan promised but couldn't deliver and stole their thunder.

Trump's advisers are praying for the left to stage counter-protests, Tienanmen Square cosplay, and in general making a big public show of hating this. So are the Bannonites and Weasel News-ers. They thrive on that sort of thing in the same way Nixon thrived on running against protesters in 68. It gives them lots of opportunities to characterize their opponents as abnormal, or overly dramatic or theatrical. They did the same thing whenever protesters showed up to Trump rallies during the election. It drove Trump's numbers up across the board in polls and in Twitter followers, it drove Breitbart web traffic, it drove Fox News ratings. In many ways the protests last year had the same effect.

But this would be a very special sort of protester vilification, because they won't merely be able to represent the protesters as weird or crazy people wearing vagina hats. This might-happen parade is a military parade. The headlines and political spin write themselves. DEMOCRATS DISRESPECT TROOPS. Or maybe "THEY FOUGHT FOR OUR FREEDOM OF SPEECH. NOW THE LEFT IS TRYING TO SILENCE THEM." Blah blah blah. But it will work if people give them the opportunity, and it won't just work amongst republican or republican-leaning voters either.

The single best way people can address this parade---assuming it even happens---is to treat it the same way as his inaugural address: don't show up.

_________________

iamntbatman wrote:

On Friday I passed an important milestone in my teaching career: a student shat himself

FloristOfVampyrism wrote:

That wasn't meant as a k.o. though, he specifically targeted an area of the cerebellum which, if ruptured, renders you a Jehovah's witness indefinitely

People will show up because military gear is cool. The US has some of the best, most interesting and most advanced tech. You can bet people will want to see that. The last time it happened in 1991 over 200,000 people showed up in DC alone, with many more showing up in the one the day after in New York. Trump knows people show up for this shit. That's exactly why he wants this parade.

People will show up because military gear is cool. The US has some of the best, most interesting and most advanced tech. You can bet people will want to see that. The last time it happened in 1991 over 200,000 people showed up in DC alone, with many more showing up in the one the day after in New York. Trump knows people show up for this shit. That's exactly why he wants this parade.

That also occurred after a triumphant military victory overseen by a popular president. People will still want to see military tech, sure, but there's no need to inflate the numbers by organizing a big protest alongside. And people enjoying it is just another reason not to protest it. "PROTESTERS EQUATE MEDAL OF HONOR RECIPIENTS WITH HITLER." Or "I TOOK MY 5-YEAR-OLD TO HONOR THE TROOPS AND VAGINA COSPLAYERS RUINED IT." Like, you know that's how this would play out.

Also, side note, and something I mentioned early on in this thread: Trump asked for this before, and the military denied him. They cited that 1991 military parade as part of their reason why. DC's streets were expensively damaged, because they weren't designed to hold the weight of a column of 70-ton tanks. And still aren't. Nothing has changed.

_________________

iamntbatman wrote:

On Friday I passed an important milestone in my teaching career: a student shat himself

FloristOfVampyrism wrote:

That wasn't meant as a k.o. though, he specifically targeted an area of the cerebellum which, if ruptured, renders you a Jehovah's witness indefinitely

People will show up because military gear is cool. The US has some of the best, most interesting and most advanced tech. You can bet people will want to see that. The last time it happened in 1991 over 200,000 people showed up in DC alone, with many more showing up in the one the day after in New York. Trump knows people show up for this shit. That's exactly why he wants this parade.

Being interested in the tech and gear is one phase in the life of a young man interested in military history, strategy and policy. We all go through it. Then, for a chosen few, the interest deepens, and we learn that the Commando comics and Band of Brothers are just a single, narrow facet of the whole. There's a bunch of other sides to all of it, the unquestioning US veteran fetishism and parades being ones originally designed for other purposes but nowadays hijacked to fool the gullible.

John_Sunlight wrote:

Nationalists and uniform fetishists have been creaming their pants at these public exhibitions a lot longer than Trump has been around.

Oh, look! You understood the point! Good work!

I think a sky-blue field marshal uniform would fit Trump very nicely. He could also wear his boy scout medals, and a special medal given to him by the Joint Chiefs of Staff, probably the size and shape of a sunny-side-up fried egg. To respect the troops, of course, not to show his Big Button.

Also, it seems Putin is not the only one to miss the good ol' days of Kremlin October Revolution celebration grandeur. Let's all go 40 years back in time!

It's funny, I was pretty certain the world had already experienced fascism, saw what it looked like, and saw where it led, but apparently the last hundred years have been one long golden age of peace, and the memories we all have of wars and genocides are false ones. I mean, if that all really did happen, why are so many people acting as if it didn't?

_________________

MorbidBlood wrote:

So the winner is Destruction and Infernal Overkill is the motherfucking skullcrushing poserkilling satan-worshiping 666 FUCK YOU greatest german thrash record.

Yeah, it's a lot like people who are obsessed with getting rid of Trump (impeach!!! etc).

..Pence would probably be less embarrassing but have worse policies, will be a shittier human being in general, etc etc. That and the whole renegade republicans thing, yeah it's just cringy centrist neoliberalism at its' worst.

He has done plenty that puts him in impeachable territory. And while Pence is arguably much worse, I have doubts that Pence would be able to get off clean. Trump wants to talk to Mueller, and I'm guessing it's either because he honestly (stupidly) believes he's innocent, or he wants to throw people under the bus. When Nixon crashed and burned, others went with him (his VP Agnew was actually dragged down first), so I doubt Pence would get off scot-free. Indeed, if Pence somehow did survive and end up as President, the black clouds over his administration, from being associated with Trump, would pretty much make him powerless. Gerald Ford was pretty much useless after he took over for Nixon, and as I recall, he either didn't seek re-election, or it was noted that he probably shouldn't bother.

Pence would not just get out free and easy, and if things continue to look bad leading into that election, they're basically handing the Democrats sweeping victories.

However, this back-and-forth of swapping out all-Republicans for all-Democrats mentality only contributes to nasty bi-partisanism and fails to maintain steady progress. No matter what, the next administration will have to waste considerable time just undoing the damage Trump has done.

OH, SPEAKING OF PENCE:

Twitter meltdown for, essentially, being called out for his bigotry by gay Olympic athlete, Adam Rippon.

The idea that Pence calls his support of conversion therapy "FAKE NEWS" leads me to believe that, yes, he fully supports conversion therapy.

To think, fake news used to mean, or rather, still means for sane people, "bat child found in cave" or "Hillary ran a pedophile circle in a pizza restaurant basement!" kind of crap. Now it's anything that is remotely critical of the administration even when 100% factual.

The "fake news" weaponizing/re-appropriation by Trump and the GOP is honestly among the most insidious, harmful thing they've done so far. I fear the ripples of that de-legitimization of facts and journalism will be felt for decades to come. The most crassly ignorant and lowest educated idiots all vote Republican, but what good is education, debate, facts, investigations (whether it's Bob Mueller's or anything else) etc. as a counter to this, when they can just scream "fake news" or "liberal bias" to disregard literally everything?

How do you even start to combat this shit? I honestly don't know, but it's really goddamn infuriating and depressing.

_________________

Von Cichlid wrote:

I work with plenty of Oriental and Indian persons and we get along pretty good, and some females as well.

Markeri, in 2013 wrote:

a fairly agreed upon date [of the beginning of metal] is 1969. Metal is almost 25 years old

The phenomenon of politicians yelling "fake news" is really just the culmination of something that has been building for about 25-30 years now, distilled into a bumper sticker. Every time an elected official heard one of their constituents, or a partisan "news"/infotainment broadcaster, state something so obviously untrue that even the most biased legislator knew it was bullshit---and yet quietly nodded along to its pronouncement---they were taking one more step along the path to "fake news," and dragging the rest of us down with them. It is an admixture of pure cowardice on the part of pols and a selfish misunderstanding on the part of voters---cowardice for telling voters what they want to hear instead of what they need to hear, and misunderstanding the role of the elected official as writing a blank check for every thoughtless voter impulse rather than using their best judgment.

All of which is an overlong way of saying that too many elected officials do not say "no, you're wrong" to their constituents. Or to the infotainment salespeople egging them on.

_________________

iamntbatman wrote:

On Friday I passed an important milestone in my teaching career: a student shat himself

FloristOfVampyrism wrote:

That wasn't meant as a k.o. though, he specifically targeted an area of the cerebellum which, if ruptured, renders you a Jehovah's witness indefinitely

The "fake news" weaponizing/re-appropriation by Trump and the GOP is honestly among the most insidious, harmful thing they've done so far. I fear the ripples of that de-legitimization of facts and journalism will be felt for decades to come. The most crassly ignorant and lowest educated idiots all vote Republican, but what good is education, debate, facts, investigations (whether it's Bob Mueller's or anything else) etc. as a counter to this, when they can just scream "fake news" or "liberal bias" to disregard literally everything?

How do you even start to combat this shit? I honestly don't know, but it's really goddamn infuriating and depressing.

We seem to be stuck in an era of abject conversational stupidity. Instead of being taught to accept when we're wrong, we learn to double-down on wrongness. I used to refer to the talk-show era of daytime TV (when stuff like Jerry Springer and Maury reigned) as the "he who yells loudest is rightest" era, where screaming in people's faces was considered "winning an argument."

Instead of being taught how to talk about "hard things" like religion and politics, we're taught it's rude to talk about those things, so no one learns how to talk about "hard things" in a way that's appropriate, useful, or beneficial. Instead of conversations, everything turns hot-headed, one-sided, or argumentative.

Sadly, it's a problem that seems to breach the boundaries of party, and even class or status, quite often these days. And hell, I feel it. I end up talking to someone who is pushing an idea or agenda or concept that's balls-out moronic, harmful, or just plain old wrong. I'm more likely to go "what the fuck is wrong with you?" than to remember I'm talking to a person, and people don't respond well to berating.

When our leadership can't handle being asked tough questions, unthinking masses follow suit. How soon is it before we talk to someone in person, confront them about something stupid, only for them to respond with "fake news" as a response? I'm betting it's actually happened to some of us.

Have to agree though, Trump's war against the press, and his work to de-legitimize news and information is waging a propaganda war that has long-reaching and dangerous consequences. Those of us not falling for it need to keep the pressure on so they can't just get away with yelling "fake news" when confronted with hard questions, and the hard part is that we need to make sure we're doing that to the people on our side as well, or that opens the door to allowing a Trump-like monster to infest the opposition.

We seem to be stuck in an era of abject conversational stupidity. Instead of being taught to accept when we're wrong, we learn to double-down on wrongness. I used to refer to the talk-show era of daytime TV (when stuff like Jerry Springer and Maury reigned) as the "he who yells loudest is rightest" era, where screaming in people's faces was considered "winning an argument."

Instead of being taught how to talk about "hard things" like religion and politics, we're taught it's rude to talk about those things, so no one learns how to talk about "hard things" in a way that's appropriate, useful, or beneficial. Instead of conversations, everything turns hot-headed, one-sided, or argumentative

Honestly, has it ever been any different? Outside of maybe academia, I have my doubts.

Honestly, has it ever been any different? Outside of maybe academia, I have my doubts.

In my experience I've found that statement to be completely bass-ackwards. Yes, regular people are still capable of discussing opposing viewpoints civilly. Otherwise I wouldn't have any friends! And academia is a strange example to choose. Maybe you recall some golden age of open intellectual debate, but in recent years campuses have become swarmed with mobs shouting down speakers they disagree with. I've had much more stimulating debates with some guy at the bar than in the stale, sanitized atmosphere of the classroom.

_________________

Apteronotus wrote:

Mütiilation. There should be a missing I, not an extra one. Really a missed wordplay opportunity.

We seem to be stuck in an era of abject conversational stupidity. Instead of being taught to accept when we're wrong, we learn to double-down on wrongness. I used to refer to the talk-show era of daytime TV (when stuff like Jerry Springer and Maury reigned) as the "he who yells loudest is rightest" era, where screaming in people's faces was considered "winning an argument."

Instead of being taught how to talk about "hard things" like religion and politics, we're taught it's rude to talk about those things, so no one learns how to talk about "hard things" in a way that's appropriate, useful, or beneficial. Instead of conversations, everything turns hot-headed, one-sided, or argumentative

Honestly, has it ever been any different? Outside of maybe academia, I have my doubts.

I'm quite certain it's been different. People are a reflection of their media, be it life imitating art, or art imitating life, media is a great example of how different people speak and approach things now. Hell, watch an original Outer Limits or Twilight Zone (from the 60's) and you see things like trust in known institutions. These shows reflected not only a respect for science and academia, but a love of it, and scientists were well respected and frequently seen as heroes and problem solvers. Look at how society has degraded, and scientists are all too frequently seen as "greedy monsters who want children sick to make money." The anti-science side tries hard to play on emotions, which makes people irrational and easy to manipulate. Look at how people acting on emotions run around championing the horrifying anti-vax movement or trying to play on feelings to take away women's rights when talking abortion. This kind of unintelligent shit spreads, lowering IQs across the board.

There is also the notable issue that speaking to people online grossly dehumanizes conversation. It's anonymous, there's distance, people don't have accountability (or don't feel they do), and a basic failure or understanding in how to communicate in writing makes the Jerry Springer yell-a-thon infinitely worse, while spreading to nearly everyone.

I'm sure we've all, at some point, fallen prey to this perfect storm of "I can be a dick online and get away with it" mentality. Don't even comment on anything on Facebook for a while, just read what people are saying and how. People talk to one another on there in a way they generally do not in real life. If someone is mistaken about something, people don't see them as incorrect, or uninformed--they're suddenly the most ignorant, spiteful, worthless, uneducated monster imaginable. Knee-jerk assumptions and judgments are bandied about left and right to anyone who disagrees with you (general use, not you specifically). If someone is wrong, they can't admit it or learn from the mistake, they double-down, go down with the ship (not respectable in any capacity), become more argumentative, or go Googling for any half-assed article that remotely agrees with them. To think this was such a problem before the internet or Facebook seems a tad silly.

It's also hard to deny that we also live in an era where stupidity is celebrated. The jokes about how "Idiocracy was a comedy that turned into a documentary" exist for a reason. Under Dubya Bush, the US went through a wave of anti-intellectualism, where being dismissive of professionals, academics, science, and intelligence was growing dangerously popular. And you know where that bullshit led?

Right to where we are now. We've ended up with a President who has no business being in the office, has no idea how to do the job, and is doing untold damage to not only his country, but potentially other countries as well.

Was this always a problem? Maybe. The number of college-educated people seems to be on the rise, but the quality of our colleges seems to be dropping. And there was always gruff, simpleton types of people out there quicker to argue by slinging beer bottles and fists. The big difference now, is that the internet allows normally educated and even-headed people to respond in the gross, brainless manner of some emotional stereotype of uneducated trailer trash.

I had a surreal moment a week and a half ago: in a gathering of a university technical group I belonged to two decades ago, a basically smart and level-headed dude ten years my senior started spouting the weirdest rhetoric in a long while. He was convinced that every media outlet, news broadcaster, and newspaper is a biased source for anything, and one can never trust anything. He claimed that nothing is safe from an agenda, and that people like Trump or our idiotic True Finns are the ones speaking their minds, honest, and the only salvation we have from this quagmire we are in. I was flabbergasted.

Somehow, with the help of people who seem to speak without filters to cover their own vile agendas, have managed to convince surprisingly many people of their own idea that media is always biased, there's always an underlying agenda, and they, behaving like uncivilized brutes, are the only honest speakers. It extends to all media, but science, for example, is included: there's always a possibly evil, but at the very least, greedy, agenda to everything. And thereby, we get the anti-vax louts and climate change deniers: they offer a "common sense" absolution from everything inconvenient or too difficult to understand, and give a false sense of making an "informed decision" in cases where Average Joe has nothing on which to truly base a decision. Things like herd immunity, climate extremes caused by CO2, the complicated nature of the autism spectrum, and the immense problems and reasons behind of immigration, and especially such huge concepts' complex interplay, are unfortunately beyond the comprehension of the average non-scientist Westerner. Anyone offering a simple explanation, and an easy one to accept in its blunt and outright denial of facts, is going to get people to listen to him.

The result is falling vaccination rates, withdrawals from the Paris Accords, Trump, Brexit, LGBT oppression, and eventually, eco catastrophes, polio outbreaks, extinctions, and wars and misery caused by isolationist policies, "us first" thinking, and general fall of the cumulative IQ of mankind. If it's easier to hear, understandable to a soccer mom, and less inconvenient than the complex alternative, it's easy to accept, too. People are still tribal apes, driven by pretty simple desires, and Men in Black was absolutely correct about us: individuals may be smart, but collectively, we are a herd of idiots.

I could talk about the problems caused by the internet, or, rather, social media, for the duration of several cases of beer, but the incredible success rates of over-simplification and the never-before-seen (and idiotic) idea of equality of all opinions are major contributors to where we are now, and it's going to get much worse before it gets better. Just wait for it: once we get a truckload of dead or disabled babies after the first major outbreak of polio in the West, the first and loudest blame will be on an imaginary agent that infected the healthy kids for the benefit of Big Pharma, not the combination of the low local vaccination rate and someone' recent trip to Pakistan or Somalia. Because it's easier to lay the blame on someone else than it is to admit you are wrong. Mark my words.

Fundamentally, we like the idea that we can somehow influence our own life with our choices, however imaginary that effect may be. In today's world that influence may often be marginal, but we love to maintain that illusion; there are few ideas I hate more than a completely ignorant person "taking responsibility" without actually taking any responsibility whatsoever, and "making an informed decision" without understanding anything, especially in matters that clearly fly over their heads and that may also hurt others. All opinions are not equal. Far from it. And we must re-learn that fact, possibly the hard way.

Yes, regular people are still capable of discussing opposing viewpoints civilly. Otherwise I wouldn't have any friends! And academia is a strange example to choose.

Maybe you're right. Where I grew up, there were no shortage of people who thought they knew everything and were willing to become physical if you dared to disrespect them by disagreeing. When I was thinking of academia I was actually more so thinking of actual academics, not students. But anyway, I think it's important to point out that people on their own are often pretty reasonable, in person. In groups or online, it's a whole other story.

''watch an original Outer Limits or Twilight Zone (from the 60's) and you see things like trust in known institutions. These shows reflected not only a respect for science and academia, but a love of it, and scientists were well respected and frequently seen as heroes and problem solvers.'' All was not great at the time. Some scientists did pretty shabby or downright horrible things. Think about the nazi. Not only there, it was in every countries. I wouldn't want to be in a psychiatric hospital in those days. Let's not forget the atomic bombs and the search of chimical weapons. Some scientists were saying that africans were inferior and that homosexuality was a mental illness. They were not only depicted in good terms. There was also mad scientists in some shows and in cinema. the horror cinema was booming. The conversations were not all that great either. Just look at the communist hunt after the war. It was the times of ''Father Knows Best''. All was not dark but I'm a little bit tired to hear or read that before all was so great and all is worst now.

_________________

MawBTS wrote:

"I felt a great disturbance in the Force, as if millions of screamo bands suddenly cried out in terror, and were suddenly silenced."

They may not destroy it all at once, but they will do what they always do: attempt to weaken and undermine it to the point where it is so ineffective and underfunded, then use it as proof that "government doesn't work" and then make the argument to privatize it or cut it even further.

Having a College Degree isn't always a good sign that he or she knows what they are talking about. Look at half of the people who attend college and university. I know its a generalization but i'm willing to bet its true at least some of the time. And most of them wouldn't know even decent music if it slapped them across their faces.

''watch an original Outer Limits or Twilight Zone (from the 60's) and you see things like trust in known institutions. These shows reflected not only a respect for science and academia, but a love of it, and scientists were well respected and frequently seen as heroes and problem solvers.'' All was not great at the time. Some scientists did pretty shabby or downright horrible things. Think about the nazi. Not only there, it was in every countries. I wouldn't want to be in a psychiatric hospital in those days. Let's not forget the atomic bombs and the search of chimical weapons. Some scientists were saying that africans were inferior and that homosexuality was a mental illness. They were not only depicted in good terms. There was also mad scientists in some shows and in cinema. the horror cinema was booming. The conversations were not all that great either. Just look at the communist hunt after the war. It was the times of ''Father Knows Best''. All was not dark but I'm a little bit tired to hear or read that before all was so great and all is worst now.

You're missing Resident_Hazard's point. Yes, there have been less-than-ideal or even horrible things done in the name of science and progress, but his point was that people generally trusted the scientists and science in general. Nuclear weapons were and are horrible things, and eugenics, for example, is a bad idea; yet before the 1990's, very few people actually questioned science, or even the motives of scientists, outside the mad doctors in horror flicks. The results of science were seen as trustworthy, and the things suggested by science were generally applied in politics. See the curious case of the ozone layer as an example.

Nowadays any science that suggests that something uncomfortable needs to be done, even remotely seems to profit someone, or just seems like an iffy idea gets an immediate backlash from mouthbreathers and greedy folks. That's a big part of the climate change denial and anti-vax attitude. Kids were vaccinated in the 1940's through 1990's without much questioning, and smallpox is gone; now diseases are making a comeback and roughly 30% of the people say they don't trust the climate science, only because they do not like the implications it has on their own life.

And remember: science has no agenda, and science is not policy. It's up to the voting public and their elected representatives to use the science in deciding what to do. Letting the climate change take its course and kill us all is fundamentally a possible policy to follow... it may not be a smart choice, especially for those of us with children, but we may do that if we wish. Science just tells us what will happen.

However, this back-and-forth of swapping out all-Republicans for all-Democrats mentality only contributes to nasty bi-partisanism and fails to maintain steady progress. No matter what, the next administration will have to waste considerable time just undoing the damage Trump has done.

America would be even more of a neoliberal shithole if both parties got along well (which effectively they do, just in deed, not in word).

''watch an original Outer Limits or Twilight Zone (from the 60's) and you see things like trust in known institutions. These shows reflected not only a respect for science and academia, but a love of it, and scientists were well respected and frequently seen as heroes and problem solvers.'' All was not great at the time. Some scientists did pretty shabby or downright horrible things. Think about the nazi. Not only there, it was in every countries. I wouldn't want to be in a psychiatric hospital in those days. Let's not forget the atomic bombs and the search of chimical weapons. Some scientists were saying that africans were inferior and that homosexuality was a mental illness. They were not only depicted in good terms. There was also mad scientists in some shows and in cinema. the horror cinema was booming. The conversations were not all that great either. Just look at the communist hunt after the war. It was the times of ''Father Knows Best''. All was not dark but I'm a little bit tired to hear or read that before all was so great and all is worst now.

You're missing Resident_Hazard's point. Yes, there have been less-than-ideal or even horrible things done in the name of science and progress, but his point was that people generally trusted the scientists and science in general. Nuclear weapons were and are horrible things, and eugenics, for example, is a bad idea; yet before the 1990's, very few people actually questioned science, or even the motives of scientists, outside the mad doctors in horror flicks. The results of science were seen as trustworthy, and the things suggested by science were generally applied in politics. See the curious case of the ozone layer as an example.

Nowadays any science that suggests that something uncomfortable needs to be done, even remotely seems to profit someone, or just seems like an iffy idea gets an immediate backlash from mouthbreathers and greedy folks. That's a big part of the climate change denial and anti-vax attitude. Kids were vaccinated in the 1940's through 1990's without much questioning, and smallpox is gone; now diseases are making a comeback and roughly 30% of the people say they don't trust the climate science, only because they do not like the implications it has on their own life.

And remember: science has no agenda, and science is not policy. It's up to the voting public and their elected representatives to use the science in deciding what to do. Letting the climate change take its course and kill us all is fundamentally a possible policy to follow... it may not be a smart choice, especially for those of us with children, but we may do that if we wish. Science just tells us what will happen.

As an aside (and thanks Napero for understanding my point), science and the people who work in scientific fields and take science seriously tend to pride themselves on science being, eventually, a self-correcting institution. Creationists like to point out famous evolutionary hoaxes or missteps like Nebraska Man as evidence that science is imperfect or there is some conspiracy afoot. The reality is that Nebraska Man was discovered as a hoax and dismissed by scientists.

No scientific theory or understanding has ever been usurped by non-scientists or people not using the scientific method. Experts can be duped at times, but those same experts tend to be the ones that correct the mistakes they run into.

To say, "well science was used to make awful weapons or justify atrocities, so it's kinda bad" is a fallacy (I forget which one), and is blanket dismissive for no good reason. Science gave us atomic bombs and that's bad... so what's the next point? Scientists are killers and murderers? You shouldn't vaccinate your kids because atomic bombs were made by scientists? All reason in this is just wrong, if not a confusing mess. Hell, I could say, "scientists made atomic bombs, and those things work great, so that means the vaccines scientists make also work great." Both of those things might be true separately, but this link is still grossly fallacious reasoning.

Just because there were some scientific ideas in the 60's that were poorly conceived, wrong, or are outdated now (for instance, homosexuality was considered a psychiatric disorder then) does not mean science was 100% wrong on everything or there was reason not to trust science.

Having a College Degree isn't always a good sign that he or she knows what they are talking about. Look at half of the people who attend college and university. I know its a generalization but i'm willing to bet its true at least some of the time. And most of them wouldn't know even decent music if it slapped them across their faces.

I watched a video once that was about education in general, and why it sometimes doesn't stick. It examined college students who got a fundamental part of our solar system incorrect. They were informed or knew previously that the Earth's orbit is elliptical, so of course, sometimes a bit closer to the sun, sometimes a bit further away. They were asked what this means, and for some reason, they thought this is why the seasons happened. So when asked why the Southern Hemisphere has opposite seasons, they were confused.

Enter education. They were informed that, no, the elliptical orbit really has nothing to do with seasons, the seasons are entirely driven by the axial tilt of the planet as it orbits the sun. So now they understood. Right?

Sadly, they interviewed some of these kids after they'd finished the class and either moved on or graduated, and some of them had gone back to believing the seasons were caused by the elliptical orbit of the planet. Feel free to facepalm, but this is equally a failure of some segment of education, and a general human failure to get over pre-conceived notions or "first things" we learned.

The point of the video was not this, however, this was a demonstration that education does not always stick and to look for methods that make education more successful, so that people understand and retain the new knowledge and information.

To say, "well science was used to make awful weapons or justify atrocities, so it's kinda bad" is a fallacy (I forget which one), and is blanket dismissive for no good reason. Science gave us atomic bombs and that's bad... so what's the next point? Scientists are killers and murderers? You shouldn't vaccinate your kids because atomic bombs were made by scientists? All reason in this is just wrong, if not a confusing mess. Hell, I could say, "scientists made atomic bombs, and those things work great, so that means the vaccines scientists make also work great." Both of those things might be true separately, but this link is still grossly fallacious reasoning.

Indeed. Atomic weapons are a marvel of engineering meeting physics, and I warmly recommend reading Rhodes' Making of the Atomic Bomb if you have enough free time to immerse yourself in about a thousand pages of scientific history. Extremely interesting, even if the end result can easily be considered one of the most evil inventions ever.

Resident_Hazard wrote:

Just because there were some scientific ideas in the 60's that were poorly conceived, wrong, or are outdated now (for instance, homosexuality was considered a psychiatric disorder then) does not mean science was 100% wrong on everything or there was reason not to trust science.

Psychology and sociology, being perhaps furthest from "pure" natural sciences and still considered science at all, are a bit of a grey area, at least in a historical sense. Homosexuality was seen as a deviation from the norms back in the day, as were masochism and other things that are nowadays almost hobbies to certain people, albeit perhaps in a more vanilla form than what was meant by the words back then. The values of the society tend to reflect on those fields more than elsewhere, and perhaps the case of homosexuality is the easiest to study. Hell, take the first sentence on mental disorders on Wikipedia:

Someone on Wikipedia wrote:

A mental disorder, also called a mental illness[2] or psychiatric disorder, is a behavioral or mental pattern that causes significant distress or impairment of personal functioning.

Sure, homosexuality is not seen as a mental illness or disorder today, but back in the early 1900's it surely caused significant distress and impairment of personal functioning in the stuck-up societies of the time, and was, looking through the eyes of the psychologists of the time, was a problem worth studying as a disorder. I am willing to bet quite a bit that many gay people were extremely unhappy in their lives, not directly because of their sexual orientation, but due to the collision of it and the expectations and rules of the societies; for an easy and well-known example, take Alan Turing.

All sciences are not equal in their freedom from society's norms, in other words, and what freedom from agendas and set objectives can be applied on nuclear weapons and vaccinations, does not quite reach every field of scientific study.

To say, "well science was used to make awful weapons or justify atrocities, so it's kinda bad" is a fallacy (I forget which one), and is blanket dismissive for no good reason. Science gave us atomic bombs and that's bad... so what's the next point? Scientists are killers and murderers? You shouldn't vaccinate your kids because atomic bombs were made by scientists? All reason in this is just wrong, if not a confusing mess. Hell, I could say, "scientists made atomic bombs, and those things work great, so that means the vaccines scientists make also work great." Both of those things might be true separately, but this link is still grossly fallacious reasoning.

Indeed. Atomic weapons are a marvel of engineering meeting physics, and I warmly recommend reading Rhodes' Making of the Atomic Bomb if you have enough free time to immerse yourself in about a thousand pages of scientific history. Extremely interesting, even if the end result can easily be considered one of the most evil inventions ever.

Resident_Hazard wrote:

Just because there were some scientific ideas in the 60's that were poorly conceived, wrong, or are outdated now (for instance, homosexuality was considered a psychiatric disorder then) does not mean science was 100% wrong on everything or there was reason not to trust science.

Psychology and sociology, being perhaps furthest from "pure" natural sciences and still considered science at all, are a bit of a grey area, at least in a historical sense. Homosexuality was seen as a deviation from the norms back in the day, as were masochism and other things that are nowadays almost hobbies to certain people, albeit perhaps in a more vanilla form than what was meant by the words back then. The values of the society tend to reflect on those fields more than elsewhere, and perhaps the case of homosexuality is the easiest to study. Hell, take the first sentence on mental disorders on Wikipedia:

Someone on Wikipedia wrote:

A mental disorder, also called a mental illness[2] or psychiatric disorder, is a behavioral or mental pattern that causes significant distress or impairment of personal functioning.

Sure, homosexuality is not seen as a mental illness or disorder today, but back in the early 1900's it surely caused significant distress and impairment of personal functioning in the stuck-up societies of the time, and was, looking through the eyes of the psychologists of the time, was a problem worth studying as a disorder. I am willing to bet quite a bit that many gay people were extremely unhappy in their lives, not directly because of their sexual orientation, but due to the collision of it and the expectations and rules of the societies; for an easy and well-known example, take Alan Turing.

All sciences are not equal in their freedom from society's norms, in other words, and what freedom from agendas and set objectives can be applied on nuclear weapons and vaccinations, does not quite reach every field of scientific study.

Ah indeed, the differences in psychology today and "yesteryear" were probably not a great example. I forget that they are not quite the hard sciences we find in biology, evolution, or climate science, etc. I'm sure I could have made a better analogy if I were smarter.

From my albeit limited experience in speaking with my friend who is trans, there have been moments where they hate who they are and wish they were "just straight and cis" so they wouldn't have to deal with so much bullshit just to feel comfortable in their own body. It's fairly well known that societal treatment of LGBTQ people has had dire consequences for the people therein. Trans people still have inordinately high suicide rates, as well as an obscenely high risk for being murdered for no good reason. That kind of societal marginalization has led to histories of addiction, abuse, depression, homelessness, isolation, and self-harm. Those grew from treatment of who the people are, but can be easily seen as how psychologists of old felt the real "mental" problem was the homosexuality itself.

-----------

Back on a Trumpian note, and this is a gray area because it can fit in the TV thread, but the final episode of Dirty Money on Netflix concerns Trump and... well, it's way worse than some of us probably imagined. He is likely going to go down as history's greatest con man, because there is nothing honest about him at any given point in his life. But the show noted how Trump went from "successful 80's douchebag" to "90's total joke" to "2000's fake successful douchebag" who did anything he could to make people simply believe he was wealthy and successful.

This has echoes of both the way Enron lied their way to success and Bernie Madoff lied his way to success. At one point during the episode, Trump was compared to how the main characters of Wolf of Wall Street lied their way into money. Trump's cluelessness is also quite deliberate, but still based on stupidity. He seems to believe that if he spreads his shit around, he can claim ignorance to illegal, sketchy, or corrupt activities within his organizations. One person interviewed noted that this does not get you off scot-free. This is how mob bosses work.

After a string of horrifying bankruptcies in the 90's that cost hundreds, if not thousands of jobs, Trump was seen as worthless by banks. He owed them so much money at one point, the interest was reportedly a million dollars a day. Think about that. The interest went up by a million dollars a day. Per day.. After this, banks would not give him money, so he went on a rampage of licensing his fake successful brand to suckers who believed he was truly successful. In this era, the 90's and 2000's, Trump was actually a trainwreck and a regular joke, but it's also when his attempts to make money grew vastly more malicious.

In the 80's, he was about real estate and casinos (that generally failed). After that, he went from conning banks to conning regular people. Trump Network and Trump University were both clearly designed to simply make money off of people who didn't have it. Trump University barely tried to pass itself off as a "university" and was very quickly a very, very expensive series of seminars--complete with instructions for people on how to raise their credit limits on their credit cards, and then to spend all that money for the Trump University bullshit seminars.

Believe it or not, this actually gets worse. And the show illustrates the financial reason Trump nearly always settles on the hundreds of lawsuits he's received. When he settled the Trump University lawsuits for something like 25-50 million dollars, they showed that had that actually gone to trial and he would have lost--because he definitely would have, up against the government and the full lawsuit, he'd have lose closer to $200 million.

By the way, you might recall that he once sued a guy for saying he wasn't a billionaire. That guy won that case.

The Russians stole the identities of American citizens, posed as political activists and used the flash points of immigration, religion and race to manipulate a campaign in which those issues were already particularly divisive, prosecutors said.

Quote:

The 37-page indictment — handed up by a federal grand jury in Washington — amounted to a detailed rebuttal of Mr. Trump, who has sowed doubts that Russia interfered in the election and dismissed questions about its meddling as “fake news.”

Trump's constant attempts to claim that this is all just nothing have fizzled yet again.